News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: 2008 MA Ballot Questions - RightNation.US

Jump to content


2008 MA Ballot Questions

2008 MA Ballot Questions

Official Elections Division website.

Question 1: State Personal Income Tax

MADGestic: Opposed (vote NO)

Ideologically I would hop on this in a second: Smaller government, more efficient bureaucracy, keep more of my own money; that’ll show them.

Regrettably, reality intrudes:
  • Metaphorically, taking ~40% of one’s FOOD away is one way to put them on a diet… but it’s hugely debatable if such a drastic measure is the BEST way to reach one’s goal; and…
  • This is perhaps the very WORST time in recent history to try a stunt like this. With an existent global financial crisis, and institutional credit tighter than a bunny’s bunghole, where’s the missing money going to come from? (Go ahead, take a guess.)

I’ll admit I’m biased… I LIKE driving on smooth modern roads and sturdy bridges, having my street plowed, my garbage picked up, streetlights and other services quickly repaired… I LIKE quick emergency services response by well-equipped and –trained professionals, dialing 9-1-1 and having the whole friggin town show up… I LIKE living where things like quality public schools, elder and family services, and access to affordable healthcare are readily available; and where street-crime is negligible and folks take care of their homes. I like that (and much more)… and there’s nothing wrong with liking that. I think that deep in our hearts, it’s what we all want.

If the proponents of Question 1 had proposed a GRADUAL decrease in the income tax rates I’d be all over it like a bad suit. 10% every 3 years… or 5% every other year… heck, I might even put bumper stickers on my cars. But “all or nothing”? WAY too radical… WAY too disruptive… and frankly, presented in a WAY too dishonest manner.

Yeah, sure, the average family may find an extra ~$3,700 in their pocketbook by not paying INCOME tax; BUT… the inevitable and concomitant rise in property and other taxes, as well as more personal out-of-pocket expenses, will chew that down to virtually nothing… not to mention turning a statewide financial crisis into a DISASTER.

Back to the drawing board, folks… wean the government off the money… don’t just cut it off at the knees. Question 1 gets a moderate NO vote from me.

Question 2: Possession of Marijuana

MADGestic: Favors (vote YES)

Heh… you saw that one coming from a mile away… right? :lol3:

I just wish that former smokers would turn libertarian instead of Nazi… right? :D

But seriously…

The proposal reduces penalties for individuals caught with LESS THAN ONE-OUNCE of marijuana (I.E.: private use, not distribution). It does NOT “legalize” or even “decriminalize” possession, just reduces the penalties… AND there are provisos for offenders under the age of 18-yo (go ahead, read it).

Furthermore: “The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.”

It’s a common sense proposal.

Question 3: Dog Racing

MADGestic: Uncertain

I’m an animal lover and a business lover… and there’s something in there that throws me for a loop:

All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.


Why not come up with a proposal that bans certain mistreatments of animals? (Which is what this proposal is supposedly about.) C’mon, be specific… this thing is wide open for misinterpretation and court challenges.

Better yet… ban the animal racing and approve the casino issues. It’s hard to be inhumane to a slot machine.

My heart says “yeah” but my brain says: "WTF?”


1 Comments On This Entry

Within a day or two of posting this entry I heard a news blurb on the radio regarding pre-election polling on these three issues. Surprisingly… (or perhaps not)… all three aligned with my observations above. Number One, the revocation of income tax, was polling about 59% against. Number Two, the decriminalization of small quantities of marijuana, was polling 52% in favor. Number Three, the elimination of dog track racing, was too close to call.

A correction: In my original post I said that possession was not being decriminalized. That was incorrect… or at least imprecise since I meant to infer that drug dealers would still get arrested and perhaps go to jail. Less than one ounce for personal use would indeed be decriminalized; although there would still be civil penalties and presumably… the confiscation of your stash.

Brianna Martin, on Oct 23 2008, 10:25 PM, said:

All of what is said is out right lies. The Racing Commission has laws in place for protection of the dogs. Here is where they can be found: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocaterminal&am...g&csid=Eoca

(snip for brevity)

Please, vote NO on Question 3.

Thank you for contributing that. :rolleyes:

Although I’m sure that the other side also has compelling arguments, I really don’t know what they are. I was handed a small flyer outside the pet store; and although I agreed with the woman that I “care about dogs”, I accepted the flyer but gave her a noncommittal “I’ll consider it.”

This is something that I’ll research further before going to the polls.

Eskimo Curlew, on Oct 23 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

Here in CALIFRNIA we have PROPISITION 8 to define a marrage as between one man and one woman becuase four imperial judges overturned the will of the voters and as usial our states dirty wretched sribblers of various dirty news papers oppose this measre

I’ve opened a thread on that issue elsewhere in these forums.
Page 1 of 1